Sunday, November 09, 2014

I'll Take My Stand

My compensation case is going to trial.

On the Fourth of July in 2012 I was arrested, jailed and charged with criminal incitement because of my no-nonsense approach to men's rights. I have stated bluntly that cops are our enemies and I hate their guts. I have said in no uncertain terms that I wish them the worst, making it clear that I morally support violent activism against cops, for revenge and more importantly with the aim of influencing legislators to reverse feminist sex law reforms. Make no mistake, the gender war is a civil war where it all comes down to sex laws such as the definition of rape, age of consent, child porn laws, sexual harassment laws, grooming laws, criminalization of the purchase of sex and so on, and law enforcement is our actual enemy in the real world. As men's rights activists (MRAs), we are intensely aware of the fact that our ideology is mutually hateful to the prevailing norms of (feminist) society. I know I am so different from the man in the street, or should I say the mangina in the street, that there is no political party I can vote for. Our mutual hatred is far stronger than most people realize, because the great unwashed do not fully comprehend the scope of the sex laws that they tacitly support. But MRAs do, and that is our defining characteristic along with the hatred that these laws breed in us. If you conform to political correctness like most people, we hate you for criminalizing our sexuality and your willingness to hurt us just for being normal men. To mince no words: I am ideologically aligned with violent activism. Please understand that this is an exposition of my moral convictions and not an incitation to commit such crimes. I believe the most honorable response to state feminism is for men to inflict damage on society (and I hasten to add preferably not by violent means; simply refusing to contribute to society can be sufficient if enough men do it) to the point where all the odious feminist-reformed sex laws do more harm than good to women when you include our activism in the equation. Our hearts and souls are seething with hatred against the feminist state and its enforcers. Simply put, men's rights activism is all about politicizing and radicalizing sex offenders -- which by now is synonymous with men -- in order to hurt the state enough to give up its war against male sexuality (and to some extent female sexuality as well, since some women also become victims of feminist sex laws).

My published opinions are perfectly sincere and I was certainly guilty as charged as far as all the facts go, but there was one problem with the prosecution's case: None of this is against the law. While I am not exactly concerned with respecting the law in a moral sense (quite the opposite; in fact my entire blog is about resisting the normative power of laws and turn back the tide of feminist legislation), I know intuitively what freedom of speech is, and as a practical matter I made sure not to cross the line into criminal speech as defined by the Norwegian penal code. Thus I never wrote a sentence without carefully crafting it to conform to freedom of speech. Considerable restraint was required as I was fuming with hatred, but I always made sure to obey the law.

The police are the ones who disregard the law. They abused their power and arrested me without any legal basis, as confirmed by the Norwegian Supreme Court, who ruled that I had done nothing illegal and ordered my release. Having already been cleared of all criminal charges but denied compensation, now I have filed a civil suit against the state seeking to be compensated for wrongful prosecution and imprisonment. My allegedly criminal utterances (or the supposedly most egregious of them, anyway, that were also most widely quoted out of context in the media at the time) were part of a philosophical discussion, far into the comment section under this post pertaining to the Breivik trial titled "Thoughts on the trial." Old and new readers can judge for themselves, as every word that triggered my arrest still appears exactly as it did the day I was arrested. Having read through that old thread again now, I see that my comments in the discussion are actually a fairly comprehensive and quite persuasive description of why I came to be radicalized into an antifeminist. Those statements will now receive renewed publicity in connection with my compensation trial, to my benefit and the detriment of the scumbags in law enforcement, which goes to show how futile it is to suppress speech by means of cops and prisons. I fully admit to glorifying crime, which is legal, but my rhetoric did not cross the threshold of section 140 in the criminal code (or §147c for that matter, which would actually be a closer fit), whether it was "public" or not (I won't rehash the technicality of whether the Internet is "public" here except to say it is irrelevant; see my posts on Lex Berge if you want more background on that non-issue).

I did not make the decision to become a militant political dissident lightly. I realize that openly and avowedly advocating the murder of police officers is the sort of behavior that is likely to get you killed or tortured or imprisoned for decades, so I was lucky to only be imprisoned for 22 days. Nevertheless, I did nothing illegal, and now I am suing for compensation. Just like communists can say they support a revolution (which incidentally would have to involve killing many more cops than I ever contemplated), and Muslims can legally say they support beheadings of infidels or whatever terrorist acts the Islamic State is up to, as affirmed by a recent ruling, I can legally say I support killing cops for antifeminist reasons. Islamists and I share the same enemy and we are both equally sincere and serious about our ideology, which can also be expressed with equal legality. I am proud of what I have done and make no apology for it. But at the same time, I realize it wasn't necessarily wise. To beat the cops at their own game -- violence -- is not for amateurs. It also doesn't matter much as far as risk goes that my alleged incitement was and is legal, because as evinced by their baseless prosecution of me, cops and prosecutors do not respect the law. As John Michael Greer said in a slightly different context of peak oil:

Violence against the system. It’s probably necessary to say a few words about that here. Effective violence of any kind is a skill, a difficult and demanding one, and effective political violence against an established government is among the most difficult and demanding kinds. I’m sorry if this offends anybody’s sense of entitlement, but it’s not simply a matter of throwing a tantrum so loud that Daddy has to listen to you, you know. To force a government to do your bidding by means of violence, you have to be more competent at violence than the government is, and the notion that the middle-class intellectuals who do most of the talking in the peak oil scene can outdo the US government in the use of violence would be hilarious if the likely consequences of that delusion weren’t so ghastly. This is not a game for dabblers; people get thrown into prison for decades, dumped into unmarked graves, or vaporized by missiles launched from drones for trying to do what the people in these discussions were chattering about so blandly.

For that matter, I have to wonder how many of the people who were so free with their online talk about violence against the system stopped to remember that every word of those conversations is now in an NSA data file, along with the names and identifying details of everybody involved. The radicals I knew in my younger days had a catchphrase that’s apposite here: “The only people that go around publicly advocating political violence are idiots and agents provocateurs. Which one are you?”

These are points well taken. I have played a deadly game, and I was aware of the risks. Those were calculated risks, of a kind I was more willing to take in my younger days. I have toned down my rhetoric since I got out of prison, just to be on the safe side, though I continue to express forthright hatred against cops and I still glorify violence against them because this sort of speech is so unequivocally legal. Now I will also have my day in court to promote my cause and seek compensation for wrongful imprisonment. My lawyer and I have started preparing the case. All my readers are welcome on November 24th at 9 AM in the courthouse. I would especially like to extend a cordial invitation to all Islamists and sympathizers of ISIS (as noted in a previous post, the Men's Movement ought to join forces with jihadists since we share a common enemy), who are also often maliciously prosecuted for bogus speech crimes. If you hate cops for any reason or just support freedom of speech, now is a good time to show up and exhibit your contempt towards the police state. Let us jam-pack the Bergen courthouse to prove that the Men's Rights Movement is a force to be reckoned with, promote brotherhood against feminism among men of all ethnicities and religions, and help legitimize hateful public rhetoric against the scumbags who enforce the feminist sex laws.

33 comments:

I remember talking to a feminist who said you were foolish to aggravate the cops like that, even though it's wrong to imprison people for their opinions. I just wonder if feminists who think that way, would have said the same about a rape victim who "teased" a man into raping her. Somehow I doubt that.

Eivind: I doubt if I can make it Oslo by Thanksgiving. Besides, as you pointed out, the American police would likely have a welcoming party at the airport since

"The NSA are monitoring e-mails..."

A lot of MRAs just don't get this. We are ALREADY on watch-lists. In fact, Futrelle---the same guy who defends torture porn films like 'Salo'---has been eagerly advocating that the FBI/NSA treat us like unindicted criminals for opposing feminism.

And if the man didn't happen to have an audio recording, the false rape accusation would likely have succeeded, too. The woman's lying word alone was already enough to have the man jailed for two days before he could present his evidence, which goes to show the bias of the scumbags in law enforcement to believe a woman's word by default with no evidence.

Because the process simply took this long, and it wasn't because I delayed anything myself. First I had to wait several months after I got out of prison for prosecutors to formally drop the charges. Then I applied for compensation to the government branch which usually handles it ("Statens sivilrettsforvaltning"), and they took six months to decide that they would deny me any compensation (even thought the rules clearly state that I am entitled to it). So then I promptly sued the state, but I had to wait almost another year before the case now finally goes to trial.

Those are interesting quotes by Elliot Rodger. He is a strange case in some ways, but the source of his anger is commonplace, I think. Notice how his hatred works to empower him rather than just break him down. I think that's an admirable quality and I can relate to that. Hatred wouldn't exist as a basic emotion if it wasn't adaptive, and it can certainly be harnessed to do great things. He is also completely right about how much power women have because they are the gatekeepers of sex. When this fact is denied by feminist society, it serves to exacerbate aggression from involuntarily celibate men, because their surroundings don't even acknowledge that there is a power imbalance against men (perversely, the opposite claim is held to be true). I don't agree with his conclusion that "sex should be outlawed," however. Elliot Rodger's tragic flaw is his unwillingness to accept the world as it is including the less than egalitarian or noble nature of the female sex drive and cultivate qualities, however base, that women might be attracted to, which would be the rational thing to do. And finally, if one must go on a rampage, I am much more impressed whenever the target is government enforcers rather than random civilians.

Someone asked how I was received by other prisoners and treated by guards during my stint in prison. And the answer is I was well received and considered almost a hero by the prisoners, who were very friendly. The guards treated me pretty much by the book, although funnily they were a bit paranoid in the Bergen prison (but not Ålesund, which is more laid-back), worrying that I was inciting other prisoners at recreation time. Other prisoners told me guards came to their cells and questioned them after seeing us talking together. This suspicion had some justification, I suppose, since I certainly set out to proselytize, but I wasn't inciting other prisoners to do anything illegal. Going to prison is an excellent networking opportunity for MRAs, in my experience. I have befriended all sorts of criminals and who knows, maybe some of them will support the Men's Rights Movement in the future. And hatred of cops is certainly one thing that all prisoners can agree on. I am privy to how prisoners talk among themselves in the recreation yard, so I know how intense the hatred is. I put into public discourse what we all feel. Most prisoners aren't very political, though, so there is definitely a need to raise awareness about how feminist ideology is to blame for many of the laws responsible for their incarceration, not to mention the insane politics behind the drug war. It is a pity that most criminals in prison got there because they tend to do impulsive things with little regard for the consequences, often under the influence of drugs. As a political prisoner I was a bit different than most, but there is still plenty of common ground. In some ways it felt like I had the most guilty mind in the entire prison, since my alleged crimes were so thoroughly premeditated. As it turned out, those were not crimes at all, however.

The government lawyers blame me for bringing the prosecution upon myself because of the things I wrote. Even though they admit I did nothing illegal and was rightly acquitted, 22 days in prison is just what I should expect for that kind of provocation, according to them. It is a bullshit line of reasoning, blaming the victim outright for the state's transgressions. So we both have freedom of speech and we don't have it at the same time. You can make these offensive statements and you can't be punished for them, but you have to expect going to prison nonetheless.

Hopefully the judge will overrule this nonsense and decide I deserve compensation.

Now the judgment is ready and unfortunately the court has decided to give me zero compensation. The full text can be accessed here: 13-210379TVI-NOHO.

However, this was only the lowest Norwegian court (tingretten), and their decision is by no means final if I don't want to accept it. My lawyer has advised me to appeal (to lagmannsretten) and that is what I plan to do. We obviously believe this decision is wrong and we have good arguments. So it looks like I will be inviting you all back to court for another round, probably sometime next year. Hopefully more spectators will show up then.

I would like to thank you for making my otherwise boring day a bit more amusing! Reading only parts of your blog and your case against the government is enough to understand that this world is really full of people that are so unlike myself :)

I love women, I am married and live a good life together with a woman that makes me happy. I can not understand that I could be more happy if I could treat her like shit and make her feel insignificant. Your case is a side effect of your inner beliefs of how society basically should treat women!

I understand you want to be a man and thinks that your way to manhood is through disrespecting women. But you never share what feeling you have inside of you when you feel love for a woman. Can you try to explain what love is for you?

Anyhow, keep on blogging, i will certainly read it. Sometimes I will giggle, and other times I will maybe nod a little bit along.

But my good - you have to be a little mentally challenged to end up with a view like yours. Someone have been very bad to you once, I urge you to also share more with us of your past and what could have triggered your mind to create the views of life that you carry around with you so dearly.

Happy thoughts, and be kind to your woman - you know you need her - even if you get a kick out of making her feel like a nobody to you....

There is something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension if you have gleaned those conclusions from reading my blog. Men's rights activism is about opposing hateful laws against sexuality, not disrespecting women. Indeed, these laws often hurt women as well and plenty of women also oppose them. Even when they are specifically designed to hurt only men and treat women as obligate victims, such as the Norwegian criminalization of johns but not whores, the scumbags in law enforcement will gleefully use the sex laws as an excuse to harass women as well as men and make life worse for all of us. Antifeminism is about disrespecting the scumbags in our legislatures who make the odious sex laws and the blue thugs who enforce them.

"We might here focus on two related developments: pre-emption, and punishment by process. Pre-emptive tactics are those which stop protests before they start, or before they can achieve anything. Kettling, mass arrests, stop-and-search, lockdowns, house raids and pre-emptive arrests are examples of these kinds of tactics. Punishment by process entails keeping people in a situation of fear, pain, or vulnerability through the abuse of procedures designed for other purposes – such as keeping people on pre-charge or pre-trial bail conditions which disrupt their everyday activity, using no-fly and border-stop lists to harass known dissidents, carrying out violent dawn raids, needlessly putting people’s photographs in the press, arresting people on suspicion (sometimes in accord with quotas), using pain-compliance holds, or quietly making known that someone is under surveillance. Once fear of state interference is instilled, it is reinforced by the web of visible surveillance that is gridded across public space, and which acts as strategically placed triggers of trauma and anxiety."

Interesting. So anxiety is the predominant affect of our times. That is pretty true, and it fits the current obsession with criminalizing every conceivable deviance and putting everyone under constant surveillance. I suspect the next predominant affect will be despair, when collapse occurs.

Any 'cop' or person given the authority to do things by INITIATED force rather than strictly the DEFENSIVE variety against, actual, criminal violations of a person or his property, is already a criminal as far as natural law is concerned and the dictates of the ultimate dictator, nature and objective reality, unchanging and yet with a million and one forms, the more truthful, the more useful and the more so tending towards harmony and equilibrium both inner and outer.

Lysander Spooner

Vices Are Not Crimes

A Vindication Of Moral Liberty

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/46

"Our natures are now so warped in many directions, we are so conditioned by education, we have no longer any straight, true, clean reactions that we can trust, and we have to be pretty wise and careful what it is we give up to, what it is we admire, what it is we are inspired by. I dare say that the stevedore's inspired by the prostitute whom he seeks, I dare say that all these things may be good so far as they go because they are necessary. But I wouldn't say that they are what should be, I wouldn't say that they are ideal." ~ Frank Lloyd Wright

“Every idea that is a true idea has a form, and is capable of many forms. The variety of forms of which it is capable determines the value of the idea. So by way of ideas, and your mastery of them in relation to what you are doing, will come your value as an architect to your society and future." -- "Idea and Essence" September 7, 1958” ― Frank Lloyd Wright

In Defense of Women by H. L. Mencken (FULL Audiobook) - not a feminist book but strictly a hilariously argued realistic one: